And there it is. Despite reassurances to the contrary, they have deliberately removed the straightforward exception for trade books from the proposed guidance, making it much harder to write a book with crossover significance & harder to have the ‘impact’ that REF say they want.
And there it is. Despite reassurances to the contrary, they have deliberately removed the straightforward exception for trade books from the proposed guidance, making it much harder to write a book with crossover significance & harder to have the ‘impact’ that REF say they want.
Not to mention that this deliberately puts the onus on authors/universities to pay big commercial ‘academic’ publishers to publish our work! As if doing all the reviewing, editing and writing for free wasn’t enough.
@carolinepennock If you actually read the text you can put the final mss on an open access research archive platform such as PURE and meet that requirement. Most people will still prefer to buy and read it as a book tho. So parallel economies in effect. I wouldn't panic yet.
@carolinepennock Read the fine print. Lots of language (‘only appropriate’, ‘more appropriate’) that you can drive a bus through. (‘Deliberately’ is also a dubious assumption.). Also it’s a kite, not a decision. Make representations now!
@carolinepennock Genuine impact is publishing a trade book where your original research and approach is made accessible and engaging for a large audience. OA for arts and hums has been seriously flawed since it was first pushed by academic library community/ukri a long time ago
@carolinepennock @NikkiClark86 It’s almost as if the people who design the REF didn’t actually care about the things they claim to.